criterionforum.org

Watched this today and I liked it much more than I thought I would -- I was prepared to be utterly disappointed.
The flashback storytelling does eschew the linear nature of the novel, which I can see perhaps doing for the adaption in the face of running time, but it just doesn't work and it makes me wonder how a screenplay by the author (Donna Tartt), who wanted a stab at writing one, would've turned out.

Deakins' photography, the costumes, music and sets are all very lush and were great on the big screen. Some of the performances were great (Oakes Fegley, Sarah Paulson) and some were not so (Wright). Wilson was decent, although with him and Kidman there was almost too much *wink wink* towards the source material in their performances.

Overall, despite the flaws of flashback and screenplay, there is a good film here. Will probably hold up well over time.

Ansel Elgort has some shockingly sensible things to say about film criticism.

Critics usually are really great writers and they have to kind of choose a side. They decided that pointing out everything wrong with the film is the best way to write their reviews, their articles. They are all great articles, too. All the bad reviews are well written but there is a lot of good in the film, too.

I am a part-time critic and can confirm this. A review or a piece of film criticism is first and foremost a piece of writing, and as with all pieces of writing, long-form or short-form, you are always looking for an angle or an entry point or a hook that you can hang the piece on so that it is readable and sensible and coherent and discernably structured.

He goes wrong a few sentences later by saying "the film does work," when it very plainly doesn't. There are several sequences that do, but as a whole it's an absolute mess.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:18 pm Ansel Elgort has some shockingly sensible things to say about film criticism.

Critics usually are really great writers and they have to kind of choose a side. They decided that pointing out everything wrong with the film is the best way to write their reviews, their articles. They are all great articles, too. All the bad reviews are well written but there is a lot of good in the film, too.

I am a part-time critic and can confirm this. A review or a piece of film criticism is first and foremost a piece of writing, and as with all pieces of writing, long-form or short-form, you are always looking for an angle or an entry point or a hook that you can hang the piece on so that it is readable and sensible and coherent and discernably structured.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re doing a bit

I respect Elgort for sticking up for the movie in a way that doesn’t take the criticism personally. I have less respect for that Playlist writer smirking over Elgort trying to defend it.

No, as someone who writes reviews for print magazines (mainly of books it has to be said), having a specific angle on anything is of absolute necessity when you're pitching to editors; just saying you want to write a review of xyz won't cut it. You have to say why your review will be different, why it's going to be different to everyone else's. Now I wouldn't pan a work of art (be that literature or film) just to create an angle, but the system does encourage writers to take, as we all know, provocative stances. Now it's probably a little different for staff film critics, but they are an increasingly dwindling number (and even they are forced to pay attention to clicks and comments).

domino harvey wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:24 pm

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:18 pm Ansel Elgort has some shockingly sensible things to say about film criticism.

Critics usually are really great writers and they have to kind of choose a side. They decided that pointing out everything wrong with the film is the best way to write their reviews, their articles. They are all great articles, too. All the bad reviews are well written but there is a lot of good in the film, too.

I am a part-time critic and can confirm this. A review or a piece of film criticism is first and foremost a piece of writing, and as with all pieces of writing, long-form or short-form, you are always looking for an angle or an entry point or a hook that you can hang the piece on so that it is readable and sensible and coherent and discernably structured.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re doing a bit

I'll leave you to ponder over the mystery.

Now back to the topic, any comment you want to offer on what is being discussed rather than a comment on another user?

The reason I could not tell if you were joking is that Elgort’s revelation is so obvious and essential to movie reviews that I found it hard to believe anyone could take it as insight. Yes, no doubt as a former reviewer you do share his belief that reviewers must take a side, but it’s like a cashier at the grocery store commending a customer for knowing that they scan bar codes to ring up items

Film criticism or even criticism is often misunderstood. It isn't as obvious as it might seem to you as some of the other users above can attest. I'd venture it is often misunderstood even by those who practice it.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:19 pm I'd venture it is often misunderstood even by those who practice it.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:18 pmI am a part-time critic and can confirm this.

I wouldn't say this was objectively bad, but man was it overstuffed and lacking in direction. I had no clue what anyone's motivations were or why it mattered, plus every time something approaching interest, I wanted to know more about Nicole Kidman's character, came about the film jumped to something else. The two Russian characters however really bothered me and in 2019 we should be doing better than this.

On a different note: Nasir, you gotta stop with this passive aggressive shit man. There's things to critique about this place for sure, but talking down to DH of all people, a guy who has probably written more about movies than anybody else in the history of the internet, is pretty stupid. Look if I had to guess I'd bet that you're a good deal younger than the rest of us here and at that age things like humility, self awareness etc, etc. are hard skills to come by, but you gotta learn to know your audience and teaching us about film criticism by way of your status as a part time blogger ain't it. Frankly, the board's gone much easier on you than I would have, but then again I'm the board's roaster in chief. Do yourself a solid and fall back a bit because you're taking how people respond to your less than enthralling posts way too personally. As much as I'm sure to find your inevitable meltdown entertaining, I don't think you want that.

I don't know what I have done to earn this lecture unsolicited. If this was meant to be constructive feedback, it could have been shared one on one. As such I can only see it as an attempt at grandstanding. Again, this is all unprovoked, coming completely from you in a dormant thread. I am just responding to what you are saying and I have little context for where you are coming from or what you are trying to insinuate.

To summarize what happened above - I share a quote discussing the film's negative criticism and state I saw some truth in what was said. An innocuous post. A poster calls me out. Yet you have no problem with that. I respond to that poster and try to get the conversation back on track - to de-escalate any fights. You have a problem with that. That poster responds to me by telling me my insight was essentially useless. Yet you have no problem with that. I respond with a neutral statement. You have a problem with that.

What else can I say? I'll leave this quote here - "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." I am here to discuss ideas and this is indeed a lovely place for that. And I think it should remain that way. Petty fights should be the domain of facebook.

I am again, very happy to bring the discussion back on track and stick to movies.